Navigation

Sunday, November 13, 2016

I believe if the election were rerun 24 or 48 hours after, the democrats would win the presidency and senate. Low democratic voter enthusiasm caused low turnout. Media assurances that this was a sure thing for the democrats depressed turnout. African American turnout was especially low, and in a the close election in many states, moderately higher turnout would have resulted in the media anticipated victory for HRC.

You may skip election judgement ranting, by going to OPPOSITION STRATEGIES

Trump's racism
The real estate industry is the primary conduit for persisting racism. Racists are attracted to the industry because it gives them control over who is allowed to live where. Good neighborhoods and good schools need to exist within a reference frame of bad neighborhoods.

The "Birther" attacks on Obama were clearly a violently passionate attack that could only be believed if first a gut instinct that he's an illegitimate President is held, and then latching onto any theory.

The "Central Park 5" (Black accused murder/rapists) opportunity so motivated him that he rushed to take out newspaper ads to address/raise awareness of the "nigger problem". Even after they were found innocent (someone else found guilty), he insisted on continuing their demonization, certainly because of the "greater problem" that seemed more important to him.

Trump's stupidity
Having a college education not only implies a minimum level of intelligence to gain admission, the process also exercises your thinking and gives you enough background information to absorb and understand the world for the rest of your life. Its normal for people with little understanding of issues to have very strong opinions about them, because they feel better about themselves after thinking they grasp a single advantage or disadvantage, and relieved that they no longer need to strain themselves to consider other aspects.

Being against the Iraq war, but also critical for not confiscating the Iraqi oil is childish stupidity. Simultaneous criticism of excessive and insufficient evil, and a failure to recognize that the true evil he seeks, requires partnerships on the ground, and the oil is payment for their service.

Torturing children until their parents admit to being terrorists is a mental deficit indicative of racist dementia. A college education prepares you to consider the possibility that the tortured tell you what you want to hear to make the torture stop. (Something he would know if familiar with Central Park 5 case).

Fundamentally, "lacking temperament to be president" is the combination of hate, stupidity, violent impulsiveness, and cautiouslessness (bankruptcies) he's demonstrated. Power doesn't increase reflection.

Trump as an establishment puppet
His transition team are establishment professionals. He refined his campaign tax plan to match Paul Ryan's. During nomination political bargaining, he reportedly offered Kasich the power to administer the whole country to be on his ticket, suggesting he has no desire to govern.

During his first day in Washington's press conferences, his body language was defeated. Paul Ryan had a genuine (non politician) beeming smile in total control. Trump, an exceptionally talented liar, instead of having an emotional lift from winning, is showing emotional diminishment from knowing he has to walk back the lies, and is submitting/cowering to the establishment.

Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed beeming enthusiasm for Trump's victory is indicative of the bipartisan establishment's commitment to Saudi Arabia's middle east destabilization interests, and threatens the Iranian counterbalance and peace progress made by Obama. Trump's natural love for the military ensures welcoming any invitation for greatness the world establishment provides him. The swamp is swampy because greater people than him got drunk in it.

The Republican establishment seeks only to destroy America. A collapse into a police state that serves the wealthy, and job creation only in the form of desperate people sucking dick for a blanket.

Any Trump benefit of being an outsider independent of the swamp's financial control, such as detente with Russia, or any attack of HRC's progressive agenda due to beholdment to the establishment, is completely lost if he sinks into the swamp on the first day. Obama, and the democrat agenda, made minimal progress against the Republican's destruction agenda over the last 8 years, but the US did significantly better than its European peers, and the administration should get a passing grade for recovering from Bush's economic destruction.

You can't simultaneously politically attack artificial low interest rates, and the economy. Dumping of US bonds post election is not a sign of anticipated economic utopia. The hamster wheel economy depends on maintaining housing prices. Higher interest rates will depress that market, and the dangerously high car production that has been financed through subprime in the last 4 years (over $1T in outstanding auto loans).

A 3/10 on the Idi Amin scale (corruption/self-enrichment) democrat candidate would have been preferable to a 7/10 on the Hitler scale (hate and megalomania). Republican establishment control over him may mitigate the overt Hitler factor, but snapping temperament issues, and ultimate authority to act upon them, must remain a concern.

OPPOSITION STRATEGIES

Democratic Establlishment
Midterm elections in 2 years are already being focused on. Even if they are unable to stop destruction, they can vow very strongly to undo destruction. This is key in both eliminating the extent of destruction and preventing the private commitment to any passed destruction initiatives.

It is natural to worry about democratic party impotence. If the Democratic establishment wants any credibility and faith in its opposition to Republican control, Obama should at least make a recess Supreme court appointment.

Climate change issues
Dirty Coal is a dead technology that is uneconomic. Clean coal is even more expensive and uneconomic. All rhetoric designed to appeal to coal worker voters were outright lies, unless there are plans to nationalize and subsidize the industry beyond simply allowing complete environmental destruction.

Pipelines are 40-100 year payback projects. The oil economy will not last that long regardless of Republican policy. Democratic party assurances that all private investment in new pipelines will be made bankrupt the next time they have the authority to do so, should effectively nullify any destructive approvals of pipelines or coal mines.

The same stance will have some effect in limiting the destructive financial deregulation follow through, that republicans are salivating to inflict.

Tax destruction
A bill to criminalize deceptive and false economic theory, basically everything Larry Kudlow ever comments on, but most specifically that lower corporate taxes would increase rather than decrease growth, might stop the economic destruction of America. If it doesn't stop corporate tax cuts, it will at least serve to link them to the economic destruction that results. This is a corporatist media problem, but republican zombification of Americans towards corporatist subservience and economic destruction is easy when the lie goes unopposed.

While corporations pay a low percentage of total government revenue regardless of their tax rates, the simplest way for them to lower taxes paid is through any form of spending or investment. The higher the tax rate, the greater tax reduction they receive and so the lower the risk to investment or hiring. Low corporate tax rates only benefit successful companies with sure profit formulas. McD opening a new restaurant or Apple developing iPhone 11 are sure profits, unaffected by tax rates. Real risk taking investment is encouraged by higher tax rates that mitigate the cost of failure. End of year purchase decisions for successful small businesses are encouraged (economically stimulative) by high tax rates. A 50% tax rate is equivalent to a 50% discount on new computers, office furniture, or hiring additional sales staff.

State secession movements
Secession is first and foremost a bargaining position. Freedom only exists if you have the freedom to walk away. The ultimately true and resonating Brexit argument was that there is no valid insistence on submitting to Belgian rule. In an atmosphere of threatening to tear up international treaties and agreements, national agreements should also be up for negotiation.

California Leadership
Leadership by California opens up similar opportunities in other, especially Blue, states. Clear opportunity for the west coast to unify. Clear opportunity to unionize with Canada, and clearer opportunity for Atlantic and great lake states to join the new stronger union.

Friendly secession
California will still buy red state corn, and happily sell them tech and entertainment. Red states will have complete unimpeded freedom in setting up an exploitation and prison economy, and can expel their liberal faggots, and fund all the wars they crave. Red states can protect their empires of dirt. Even if I/we advise that cooperation and trade leads to greater opportunity and wealth.

The appropriate answer to divisive politics is divorce. Not submission to the winner. This approach provides the ultimate freedom to both/all sides to organize their lives and economy as they wish.

It would be less friendly to point out that Red states are economic leeches that receive a net transfer of tax revenue from productive America, and may be unable to fund every war that would bestow them greatness.

California's power
I believe most people in most states would prefer to be in a union that includes California than the one that excludes California. If California takes an inclusive stance towards a union with other states who'd prefer not to submit to federal republican rule, the secession initiative will receive significant support among US state populations and Canada.

In terms of the establishment California political system, this should seem like an opportunity for enhanced power and relevance that they should want to seize.

If the old politicians cower at the proposal, it can be a midterm ballot initiative.

Other states could offer ballot initiatives of solidarity with California's decision, if they are concerned about seceding alone.

Secession is awesome
Most Trump supporters commenting on California's secession offer the encouraging "good riddance". So we can all be happy. Self determination is the most compelling argument, but another outcome is a new union that includes all 50 states, but with looser or different association contract. Technology and ethics has advanced sufficiently in last 250 years to reform democratic unions.

The new union, and alliances with previous unions can be as close as each wants. I have a solution that enhances independence and freedom of association members, which can also be implemented unilaterally though still friendly.

Natural taxation - Cashflow based business income taxes
Business Sales are taxed, and expenses and salaries refunded, in the jurisdiction they occur. Investments received, and repayments made, taxed in business HQ's jurisdiction.
Personal income is taxed at the same flat rate as business tax. No payroll taxes. A refundable flat tax credit (potentially equivalent to basic income) creates effectively more progressive income taxation than current systems. There may be an investment profit surtax, high income surtax, and limits as to the tax deductibility of new investment from employment/business income. Longer details and justification of tax plan.

The key benefit of this tax system within alliances and unions is that higher tax rates strongly reward employment and other investment within a jurisdiction while compensating the societies that businesses sell to. The more a jurisdiction wishes to attract business investment/employment, the higher the tax rate it should set.

The proper response to any neighbour or trade partner objecting to your region's natural taxation, as some sort of unfair advantage, is to adopt it themselves.

A tributory tax system for a federation/union/association of regions
Regional/association unity is best enhanced by a tributory tax that is a percentage of each region's tax revenue (say 10%) kicked up to the federation's budget. While a federation has budgetary needs for common military, food/resource/energy security, and inter-regional infrastructure, its tributory budget should fund only a common revenue service and basic income/citizen's dividend.

The funding for the federal budget should come from a poll tax/reduction of citizen's dividend, thereby encouraging only efficient and justifiable projects are funded. A federation carbon tax, if any, should directly increase the social dividend.

The tributory tax system does have successful members contribute more than less successful members. This serves as economic insurance, but also enhances the alliance economy as a whole by improving market access, and overall development.

A rich area may not have the geographic advantage for a solar or hydro energy project. Federal assistance in incubating such projects and in electricity distribution networks can facilitate energy security and trade.

Under tributory tax system funding citizen dividends, regions fund whatever empires they wish for themselves through their own funds. The federation is relatively weak and only able to fund justifiable projects. Regional independence is maintained because of this, while unity and cooperation facilitated.

If Nevada can make an argument that the federation very much needs a large desert solar plant it can sell the project/venture more persuasively to citizens if it offers to put up a significant portion of the costs.

Seperation of assets and liabilities
Like divorce, there is a separation of assets and liabilities in friendly secession. Military assets are likely to be the most touchy. An honest proposal at a fair separation enhances the friendliness of the secession, though since there are more liabilities than assets, a negotiation breakdown would harm the incumbent union more. In my opinnion, an honest and fair secession proposal cannot be met by military violence without expressly acknowledging the slave status of subjects to the king. King succession through electoral games does not weaken the king's power, exposing the weakness and inadequacy of the piece of paper (constitution) we tell our children gives us freedom.

Friendly secession
A successful region that wishes more independence will face less resistance by offering union and federation with its neighbours under terms that include the successful members paying more into the federation than the less successful members. Doing so invites union and alliance, and enhances the friendliness of secession, and the opportunities that become visible to all. This also weakens militarist destructive impulses of the incumbent. If all of its members are more interested in joining the divorcing party than in destroying it, they are more likely to seek reform in their own union membership. They can even view paths to reform that are purer to their ideals and free from compromise with political opponents.

Comprehensive opposition strategy
The democratic party establishment will do their part, but their only current power is threatening action the next time they achieve power. The rest of us should not submit to these high stakes electoral contests for dictatorial control, or rely on the success of the democratic party opposition. The loud discussion and planning of independent alternatives, may be most effective in mitigating destruction and evil.

One natural concern is that if red states are no longer supported by blue state tax revenue, they will have no choice but to rape the environment and planet out of desperation, perhaps turning to North Korean style militarist brinksmanship.

DPRK is the way it is due to imposed isolation forced upon it. For this reason, friendly/inclusive session should be discussed. Reforming the USA into a new union that includes all current states is the best and only way to drain the swamp in Washington that the political duopoly is incapable of relinquishing the power inherent in the swamp.

In reforming the USA (into new constitutional arrangement), and using the tributory tax system, there may be more sway in convincing poor states that additional oil development is both uneconomic and destructive.

The uneconomic argument is not only reliant upon properly assessing environmental and planetary damage costs, but also in failing to recognize cheaper and more efficient energy in the present and very near future. Even 10 year payback projects are a failure if oil is dead in 10 years. It should be. The rush to invest now is reminiscent of the race to exterminate whales in the 19th century.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Wishing for success and happiness of your team members, possibly hoping (though not requiring) that they share that success with you, is certainly good for the team. Humanism is team human, and teamism is not inherently evil. Cooperation beats individualism, and success of the team (or member) means there is more available to share or trade with all team members.

The propaganda of teamism
Lectures and advice about teamism is exclusively about you needing to pass the puck more to the people of the lecturer's choice. You making sacrifices for the team leaders. In nationalism, the media message is dominated by politicians and others high in the hierarchy who can control the media.

Nationalist resentment is a method of harnessing stupidity and hate by directing it away from social dominants. This point will be explained later in the paper, but there are 2 fundamental choices the wise and smart can interact with the childish and stupid. Either teach them the truth, or sell them lies. The latter has significant profit opportunity.

Nationalism as protection from competition
The dominant rationale of nationalist protectionism is the appeal to the protection from competition. This neglects the opportunities created by trade and immigration. Specifically, you cannot possibly feel threatened by everyone of these groups:

If you hope to be a strawberry picker when you grow up, then as long
as the immigrants allowed in come with a mix of skills and job seeking,
then you gain more opportunities for work than get threatened by
competition for work.

For the blue collar worker most susceptible to protectionist and hate propaganda, immigrants typically offer little to no competition to their field. For those who work in lower paid fields, there is only opportunity created for everyone else, as every penny they receive is paid out to fund other people's work, and more food and housing and other services is produced to let them survive. Even if you see no direct profit from immigrants' presence, those that do directly profit buy better homes, cars, and other stuff... which you may assist in producing.

For those immigrants who work in higher paid fields, they can directly cause increased consumption of better homes, cars and other stuff, and so overall, there is much more opportunity than competition created by immigration.Slavery is awesome
Slavery produces consumer benefit of lower prices, and master's benefit of control and power and production capacity. For the non slave, slavery whether robotic or mexican, frees them from doing the slave's work. We could have full employment, if we outlawed the mechanical distribution of water and energy through pipes and wires, and instead forced human labour to collect and deliver it. Full employment but with a standard of living closer to subsaharan Africa, and difficult to justify urban centers.

Immigrants usually earn lower wages than nationals, and the perceived threat from immigrants is quite similar to house slaves fearing encroachment from the field slaves. A fight among the slaves for the crumbs of servitude. For those who understand the awesomeness of slavery and servitude, that is the fight they want you to take, the framing they want you to see you define your problems.

Oppressing immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities, depresses their income potential, and increases their desperation to fill a servitude position or to resort to criminal activities on a unionized/gang scale. If eradicating immigrants is successful (despite your masters craving more of it), then those seeking the advantages of slavery will be compelled to relocate where labour can be more easily oppressed.

So, if you feel threatened by the oppressed, then you are necessarily oppressed yourself. No one points out the opportunities that the oppressed create for you, only the threats you should imagine. Nowhere in the world has ever shown success through a declining population.

1000 new people in your country
This analysis also applies to, the reverse, removing 1000 people. 60% of non-senior adults are employed. The general breakdown by industry is linked here. If all new people subsist on welfare, then 600 new jobs are created to serve their survival needs. Those who profit from exploiting the poor, trickle up their proceeds into luxury goods purchases. Both high end and low end consumption increases. More people also means higher prices for energy/natural resources and food and housing, which attracts more employment in those sectors (higher commodity prices offer greater profit opportunities and more pursuit thereof).

1000 fewer people actually creates more than 600 job losses. Deflation in commodities causes substantial disinvestment in those sectors. Empty housing halts new construction. Disemployment causes more disemployment. Nowhere in the world or in time will there ever be economic growth accompanying population decline.

$1M in increased Chinese GDP/wealth
China imports 5% of its economy, and another 5% in net capital outflows. Its growth has fueled high commodity prices which has kept US employment in those sectors high. The capital outflows has propped up housing and stock markets. These benefits primarily flow to rich Americans, but while rich Americans doing well absolutely does not trickled down as a broader benefit, it does prevent economic collapse that does trickle down. The raw imports number does mean that $1M in increased chinese economy does create 1 foreign (to China) $50k job. A bit more than that due to inflationary pressure in commodities. $1T in increased Chinese economy directly creates 1M foreign jobs. $50B in foreign (to China) investment, which is money going to people in your nation.

Balanced trade vs. higher trade
Considering 2 proposals:

Trade balance of $10B exports and $10B imports

Trade deficit of $100B exports and $150B imports.

Although nationalists would fan resentment over the 2nd scenario, that one includes $90B of additional job/wealth creating national value (excluding addtional distribution and retail work/value). Intangible consumer value is also much higher. You are much more likely to be happy and buy a $300 TV than a $1000 TV.

Trade protectionism
International trade benefits you through lower prices, and retributory opportunities of access to trading partner markets. As a consumer, it gives you more choice.

As an affected worker, you may wish that your job is perpetually protected, but such protection comes at the expense of others' opportunity, and all consumers choice and value.

More importantly, today's and tomorrow's threat to your work is not globalization, but instead automation. This too is more opportunity to more than threat to some. We further all want to free ourselves from work that is by definition (mechanization more efficient than manual) unnecessary. So, insisting that others be forced to hire us breaks with any principles of justice and fairness we would want to enhance.

Basically we cannot principally object to the rich corrupting protections for their empires of gold, if we insist on protecting our empires of dirt.

Nationalism as capturing hatefulness
A hateful person is going to feel resentment towards someone that outcompetes them for their ambitions regardless of the ethnic makeup of that competitor. Nationalism provides a socially expressible way for people who hate everyone all the time, to rally around other hateful people.

Politics can successfully achieve popularity by selling you the lie you want to hear.

Unconditional Basic income (UBI)
is a cash payment paid to citizens and tax payers that is a necessarily affordable tax cut the higher the basic income amount because the higher the UBI, the more existing programs can be cut, and so more "tax disbursements" (refunds) are made than taxes collected. The simplest implementation is as a refundable tax credit.

Basic income as freedom from servitude
Servitude as an employee has provided over the earlier part of the last 75 years, tremendous opportunities for income security that permitted a fulfilling lifestyle. The desire to idealize and protect those lifestyle opportunities is natural.

UBI does not prevent you from accepting employment in any way. Contrary to welfare system, no benefits are taken away from you when you earn more income. A fearmongering stupidity critical of UBI is that it may promote laziness.

The freedom of others to choose not to work is a significant benefit to anyone who seeks work. Less competition for work directly enhances your bargaining for servitude positions. That more people have the funds to purchase goods and services ensures that more work is available to try to take all of their money.

Furthermore, UBI makes it much easier for you to attempt to start your own enterprise. You can survive without immediate profit.

Even if no new opportunity given to you through UBI appeals to you, there is no reason to deny it to others. UBI improves your pursuit of an employee lifestyle, decreasing your competition, and increasing the supply of potential employers.

UBI makes competition easier and more profitable
That work is awesome and fulfilling, and lets you afford nice things should be a secret that you try to keep away from the masses. The lazier and rejecting of work the rest of them are, the easier it is for you to get to do it all and take all their money in exchange.

Easier competition reduces unethical and criminal behaviour and hatefulness
Labour (and work/entrepreneurial) markets that are free of the oppression of starvation/survival as a method of forced participation, reduces the ruthlessness and hatefulness that is conditioned into those whose life is a survival challenge

An easier life allows individuals to place higher weight on ethical concerns, and the harm, danger and repercussions.of criminal choices.

UBI allows a reactionary attitude to job displacement as "oh well, someone or something else is doing the work so that I don't have to. I'll just do something else." instead of promoting hatefulness.

Basic income as nationalist policy: Citizen's dividend
The simplest recommended implementation for basic income is through refundable tax credits. This is a tax filer benefit independent of citizenship. A citizen's dividend is specifically a benefit only for citizens. The reasons leaning towards making it a tax filer benefit are:

Immigrants pay taxes too.

Our team can mostly be defined as those who choose to live here.

Poverty programs designed just for special groups have nearly the same expensive bureaucratic overhead, and are recipes for manufacturing ghettoization, crime and hatefulness.

Nationalist/racist resentment of welfare is tied to benefits going to groups that they perceive exclude them. Asset tests and other conditionality for welfare often prevent you and your family members from receiving the same benefit. A refundable tax credit would eliminate the stupidity of Bill Oreily explaining to you how much more privileged the poor are compared to your (rich) group.

mix of tax filer and citizen benefits
The simplest mix of benefits are a basic fixed amount, and a supplementary variable citizen's dividend paid from a targeted surplus, and dependent on society's economic success and tax revenue.

Life accounts or Unconditional Loan Income (ULI)Life accounts are like student loans, but without the conditionality of spending the funds on education. Recipients can use the cash anyway they like. Repayment is through income based royalty administered through the tax code. Features include:

Low interest rate of 2% or less.

An annual new loan withdrawal limit of $5k-$10k.

Maximum outstanding balance (~$100k) that either reduce or eliminate the annual new loan amount when the cap is reached.

10%-15% of income repayment rate while an outstanding balance exists. So no repayments are owed if no income is earned.

To help overall funding, those with no outstanding ULI balance (usually rich through previous full repayments) can pay a 3%-7% income surtax

ULI as a social investment is extremely similar to UBI. A personally accountable income royalty replaces a general income surtax. But rather than faith in higher future tax revenues as a result of investing in citizens, the personal life account makes a direct connection between personal future funding of your own past benefits. The loan program is likely to have a moderate loss, but its a lower accounting loss than marking UBI as an unrepayable gift. Many of the loans will be repaid, and the interest and surtax on those who do not have life account balances makes up the funding shortfall.

Compared to UBI, ULI does mean slightly higher clawback/surtax rates, because spectacular home run successes (ex: Mark Zuckerberg) only repay their loan amount + surtax instead of an extra $1B in taxes under UBI. The latter pays for 75000 people's UBI who make no contributions to society.

Life accounts and nationalism and the politics of UBI
UBI is said to be pollitically difficult only because politics are dominated by hatefullness and protection of lobbyists. UBI provides a tax cut to 90%, the greatest possible leap in human freedom and economic growth, and so greater after tax income to 95%+, and elimination of poverty and servitude.

The only objection to UBI is protecting lobbyist and rulership empires, and the irrational value of the objectives of hatefulness to others over one's own prosperity and freedom. Structured servitude and international competitiveness are economic and political theories that justify manufacturing hatefulness and revering empires (more on this next section).

ULI acknowledges the entreneched politics of hate by attaching
individual accountability to basic income. It becomes an easier
introduction to UBI. The model of UBI personal successes paying for
"failures" becomes more evident with the inherent trackability of past
ULI access.

But the key takeaway from this and following sections is that basic income and life accounts can serve and be structured to serve nationalistic populist objectives better than nazi mexican hunting parties or hate-fulfilling political promises that your troubles are caused by slaves more oppressed than you.

Structured servitude
Servitude is systemically structured in order to ensure an abundant supply of soldiers, servants and minions. The masters use the strongest language of freedom, because unlike slavery, structured servitude provides a security/resentment free illusion of freedom..

Conscripted soldiers are the closest class to slavery as they give up autonomy towards life preservation. More generally, the culture of employee status seeking, through tying health and family-permitting-stability benefits is the main form of structured servitude. Welfare systems guide the poor towards servitude.

Client-supplier/contractor relationships are not the servant system. Supplier/contractors can value freedom over the security of servitude. They can still struggle financially, but that struggle occurs somewhat independently of the systemic structured servitude that is inflicted on society as a whole.

Most people support slavery and structured servitude even when they are near the bottom of the pyramid. Its entirely stupidity and the acceptance of lies that drive it, but the good news is that the masters no longer need to systemically structure servitude. Foreign policy and murder can be asserted in the comfort of one's own pajamas (drones), and structuring desperation such that work paying $8 or $15 per hour is begged for is no longer necessary if machines can do it for $1 or $5 per hour equivalent.

International competitiveness
Structural servitude and oppression at home is meant to keep wages low, and labour competition and desperation high. This enhances employment and profit for those who control work.

An easy way of enhancing international competitiveness is to lower the national currency value. This forces lower real earnings for everyone in the nation. If this is something anyone actually wants, then that person could instead individually request or accept to be paid less. If the US as a people want to produce socks and underwear for the Chinese, they can achieve that goal instantly through a 90% currency devaluation. Few people would be able to afford a cell phone, but you might also put your children to work in coal mines to earn enough to get one. The view on work that gets lost is that having others make your underwear is a position most children would genuinely prefer when they grow up. If you resent Mexican gardeners and housekeepers, currency devaluation can give you the opportunity to emigrate to Mexico to serve Mexicans.

International competitiveness and oppression of the local labour force is the main reason to oppose UBI. Differential tax rates have 0 effect on globalization. Exploiting desperation is what drives manufacturing or international service production decisions, and UBI reduces local desperation levels and puts upward pressure on work conditions and income.

These policies benefit less than the top 1%, but its easy to scare people into subservience and enhanced desperation. Structured servitude, and a harsh world, provides you with your place in the hierarchy and visibility for the next rung up and down, and so visibility for the behaviour to strive or avoid.

Protectionism
Trying to force purchase of nationally pure labour is a stupid myopia that misses the new opportunities created by new money and people comming in, money staying in, and serving the needs of new people. Forcing higher priced local labour, increases the cost, and limits the selection, of purchases, and necessarily increases overall poverty. If a foreign good can compete with a local good despite the transportation costs involved, then protectionism forgoes the better option, and also eliminates the extra transportation and distribution jobs created by competition. Retaliatory protection eliminates export jobs, and the associated distribution, and lessens economies of scale benefits (products cost and price) for larger local and international production demand.

Bringing the jobs back
Even if you forbid foreign slavery and exploitation for protection of home markets, globalization will still be tempting to better access foreign markets. If forced to produce local consumption at home, heavy automation is likely to be pursued to ethically keep the benefits of slavery without any responsibility for harm to any individual. Without UBI, this causes a poverty spiral where increased desperation unable to find employment sinks consumer spending and business revenue and profits and employment.

The only jobs politicians create is through, often wasteful, direct government employment and spending. The US and Obama were doing much better than international peers in maintaining employment. The art of the deal involves great sincerity when lying to people filling them with hope for what they want to hear. Lowering taxes on the rich and corporations, will not help coal and steel companies that are not making money. It will lead to all companies reducing expenses and investment (a tax deduction) that have any uncertainty to their profitability. Enhancing profits only for the most successful companies that know ahead of time that they will get a positive return on their investments.

Begging politicians to create or flatter you with the promise to create jobs for you is not the right request. You want the pay/money of a job. With that money, you can create your own work, or help someone else that creates their own work. Its up to 300M people with the power to create work/jobs instead of at most a limited number of uncaring officials.

Trump's domestic economy plans, unimpeded by congressional opposition, are a worsening of GW Bush's policies that, we are told, brought civilization to the brink of economic collapse (just domestic policy. Excludes more liberal use of nuclear weapons, child torture, and wars for the express direct pillage of oil). Hoping that the art of the deal was BSing republican elites in his support for the enslavement of Americans was the real con, is a long shot on the day after the election, and the unification platitudes speech writers always present.

Solutions with some Libertarian, Republican and Trump appeal

Flat tax combined with universal refundable tax credits (UBI)

Equal high corporate and personal tax rate

Elimination of payroll taxes.

Territorial tax system. Revamping international tax system to tax sales where sold. Expenses (deducted) where spent.

Cashflow based taxation to eliminate all avoidance

These policies would tax people and companies based on the profits that they extract from society. Exporters are subsidized with tax rebates for what they spend locally, enhancing job creation. Foreign companies are taxed on the full sales price (instead of just profit) of the goods they sell to us. This is a better solution than tariffs because it enhances trade and global work/value while compensating the nations with trade deficits. It significantly enhances investment in small and uncertain businesses by simplifying tax refunds if the investment fails. Protectionist sentiment is best served through higher rather than lower taxes.

Importantly it also allows a union of independently governed states and regions to unilaterally apply tax rates in their own interests, with the trade and work effects they prefer.

Basic income/refundable tax credits creates smaller government while eliminating poverty and empowering real freedom, including not impeding great wealth from being accumulated without permission or cronyism, and despite any high tax levels. Supposed libertarian goals.

Friday, August 5, 2016

This is likely the final post in the series critical of Linkedin as a stock proposition. Last entry in the series. Microsoft will acquire the company for $26B. The previous entries go into detail why the stock is relatively worthless. This final post takes those conclusions for granted.

Linkedin 2Q-2016 results
Another consecutive loss and negative free cashflow. Though they did significantly outperform guidance based on strong international revenue recovery. Still their US business is dying, and international spike is more likely a recovery from previous macro headwinds, thanks to refugee migration, than sustainable growth.

The signal of LNKD accepting $26B
Reid Hoffman understands that the company is a piece of shit not worth the $35B market value that it had previously reached. Previous stock compensation would also get management on board with cashing out, if they understood that the option strike prices they were holding were unreachable.

The mistake in my previous analysis was considering Hoffman an insider of the company. Its his sole voting discretion to sell the company, and treating the corrupt stock structure that allows management insiders to use the stock as a golden goose to enrich themselves with stock compensation is fundamentally a liability to Hoffman. The realization that the company is a worthless no margin enterprise, brings up the double edge of stock compensation: Retaining talent is difficult and causes even more business deterioration when the talent realizes their past compensation is worthless. A realization that would have occurred as a result of previous stock price drop.

Reid Hoffman understands (by accepting the buyout) that it is unreasonable for him to hope the company would ever be worth $26B (after compensation dilutions).

Microsoft's strategy
There are zero synergies between the businesses. MSFT's reasons for the acquisition are to go after a different business that makes no money: CRM. (Salesforce.com) which is B2B sales facilitation. Its reasons for wanting to get into this unprofitable business are only indirectly related to better penetration of its cloud and database services. Competing with CRM might drive its purchaseable value down to $50B.

Linkedin's non-HR B2B platform (premium subscriptions) is its smallest and most stagnantly growing segment. It will require significant development and investment to create a platform that competes with CRM.

This strategy theory is not public, but even if terrible, is far less stupid than Nadella's moronic public justifications for the merger. The reasons for keeping it non public are that it would admit anti-competitive intent towards CRM, and expose the Linkedin membership proposition as a ruse to sell unsolicited (non-job offer) communication access to the membership. The common mistake in valuing web site membership assets is treating the asset like a 90s cable/phone subscriber that have no other choice but to perpetually pay the membership costs.

If MSFT had any interest in the HR business, it could have bought Monster.com for under $1B, and invest in it to clone linkedin offerings. Linkedin's enginering metrics (cost of revenue including depreciation (server costs) are the worst in the industry. MSFT's declaration to leave the company alone admits that it has no interest in leveraging its own IT skills to create value in the business, and admits to seeing no value in the HR industry.

The cost to Microsoft
$26B purchase price is being financed by nearly $20B in bond offerings. The contracted interest expenses for those bonds are $11.568B over their terms. The annual interest cost is $530B.

Very optimistic forecasts for Linkedin's growth (consistent with the most bullish analyst projections) will result in $100M incremental annual profit over the next 10 years, and then likely stop growing. Under this model, profits over the next 11 years will equal the cummulative interest expenses over those 11 years. Then bring in $1B in profits per year thereafter.

The optimistic profit stream would contribute $500M over interest expenses starting in 2027. To pay back the $37.5B acquisition costs will take about 86 years. A different payback calculation is 11 years to pay $5.5B of interest cost. Another 6 years to repay remaining interest cost balance. 26-52 years to repay debt principal and additional $6B cash purchase price: 43-79 years payback.

Microsoft Stupidity:

Microsoft logic:

Everyone loves to buy Nokia phones

Lets overpay to take them over, then spend massive resources on an operating system for their phones.

If everyone loves Nokia phones so much that they will overpay for them then there is some hope we can make our investment back.

?

Write off the entire Nokia acquisition years later and close down the division.

The repeat of the Nokia mistake in the Linkedin acquisition is mistaking linkedin members or Nokia customers as captured slaves. Linkedin members sign up purely in the hope that it will lead to employment opportunities. Massive development effort designed to leverage assumed captured slaves may not payoff. 43-80 year payback timeframe excluding new development efforts means even lower success probability than its Nokia strategy.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

A Life Account is a term used by a Finnish politician in the context of basic income. I have no idea what she meant by it, but its a great term to describe the concept of ULI (unconditional loan income) I've developed earlier.

ULI is especially useful in the context of pilot programs under discussion in many areas of the world, but has numerous other advantages compared to just basic income.

In the context of Ontario/Canada,

Every resident under 65 has the unconditional right to a government/ backed loan of $8000 per year ($750 per month if taken every month). No restrictions or questions whatsoever related to use of funds.

There is a non-usurious interest rate of 2%/year applied to the loan(s). Each loan (monthly or yearly)'s balance cannot grow to more than 100% of original value ($750 loan has max repayment of $1500, even if still due 80 years later)

There is no fixed repayment obligations. Instead, a 15% royalty/tax on income is applied as a loan repayment. No income means no repayment obligations.

The 15% income royalty replaces the existing payroll tax system that is a fundamentally equivalent repayment burden. There is no $50k salary cap for payroll taxes. Investors and landlords and business owners, also fully repay ULI based on income.

The banking system can be directly involved in service delivery.

If you have unused ULI borrowing capacity for the year, you may borrow from it up to March 1 of the following year for any purpose, or April 31st of the year to settle income tax or repayment royalty obligations.

Spousal ULI balances are repaid at a 10% royalty rate, if your own balance is 0.

Incomes of $53400 would repay $8000 in ULI. The amount equal to what can be withdrawn the same year.

Estate taxes would place liens on non-liquid assets (houses typically) of the estate, but the estate would still formally owe any ULI.

Eligible new loan amounts can drop to $6000/year ($500/month) at $100k balance outstanding.

At $150k total outstanding, the royalty repayment rate can grow to 20%, and include new loan income as part of the royalty base.

It takes about 12 years of 0 income lifestyle to reach a $100k balance outstanding. It takes another 7-8 years to reach $150k balance if 0 repayments are ever made.

At $200k, royalty repayment rate would go up to 25%, and new loan eligibility would drop to $4000/year. It takes another 9-10 years to reach that cap.

Like a student loan without being tied to education

The life account is close to the familiar concept of renegotiation on US predatory student lending programs, where income based repayments are negotiated. Even though they are not forced to, young adults would eagerly use the life account funds to assist in their pursuit of formal education.

But development isn't limited to accredited education programs. STEM skills can be developed at a hobby/self directed learning effort. Tools, machines, design time with access to food and healthcare is development. Part time work, internships, 0-hour contracts, gigs is development towards hopeful full time middle class income.

But using the funds towards a car or food or home provides income security for any lifestyle or income level. As a complement to UBI or GAI, the overall support amount is sufficient to eliminate all other income assistance programs.

The major difference with basic income

A life account loan balance repaid through an income royalty differs from normal tax funding of UBI in that "taxes owing" is more directly related to individual benefits received. A successful doctor or other student that used 8 years of income support is likely to repay that income support. Other successful people eventually eliminate their repayment obligation (through repayment).

The poor, in exchange, receive the unchallageable right to run up a high benefit balance, and choose or deal with a lifestyle that will not repay it.

The main justification for life accounts vs UBI is one of cost. If 50% of the population repay their loan with 2% interest over 10 years, and of the remaining 50%, they average a 50% repayment of the loan amounts taken, then compared to the same UBI benefit level, ULI costs only 15% of the funding requirement. A $8000 ULI/lifeaccount benefit costs the same as an $1200 UBI amount.

In the linked paper, obvious funding sources (welfare elimination, basic amounts turned into refundable tax credits, special investment income credits eliminated) for an additional $3000- $4000 in UBI without any low income clawbacks are made. Enough for at least $9300 in GAI + UBI. Enough by itself for very spartan poverty elimination. (through for example, cohabitation)

ULI/life account supplement of $8000/year is both sufficient to eliminate, and a huge improvement over, EI (employment insurance). While working, you may avoid withdrawing from life account. If laid off/fired in July, you may take out $1500/month for rest of year. If laid off at begining of year, you may use unused previous year's balance. There is 0 impact on income security or income supplement strategies affected by taking a new job the day after you quit your previous one. Insurance is pre-paid access to support possibility. ULI is post-paid repayment of support received. An obviously superior income security program.

Eliminating EI benefits allows either $1500 higher UBI payments, or elimination of 7.5% of payroll taxes. Repaying ULI would be as burdensome as current payroll (EI+CPP) taxes. The ULI benefit itself though is sufficient to fund a voluntary CPP (personal pension) program, or an even better retirement enhancement program of paying down mortgage or other debt.

The total unconditional income support of $17300 is enough for anyone to fund formal education or other personal/business/family development and income security/variance requirements.

Social/Citizen Dividend complement
Basic income is often thought as a citzen benefit rather than a resident/landed immigrant benefit. The thinking is partially nationalist, but also has a cost rationale of reducing eligible recipients. Still this is not completely fair in that immigrants (may) pay taxes, and social services to ghetoize and oppress them are expensive, especially if they are needless.

Immigrants generally perform the function of slaves, a partial reason for their welcoming is that slavery is awesome (for the slavers), but a more important benefit to Canada is that all increases in the amount of people provides work/income to "pure" nationals. It doesn't matter who pays to have them eat or housed, the payments get transferred through the economy.

So far, we've discussed a $17300 unconditional income support plan made up of $6300 GAI, $3000 UBI, and $8000 ULI. Under this plan, the rich (ignoring full taxation of dividend and capital gains income) get a 15% tax cut on employement income! (due to payroll tax elimination and replacement with 15% royalty on ULI repayments).

The rich don't use ULI, but also don't have to repay it. The GAI and UBI were all revenue neutral. UBI/ULI is still a tremendous benefit to the rich in that it takes care of their family (spouse and young adult children), and further assists in their own income variability and its not impossible that they will need to access the safety net either. More importantly, the rich benefit the most from the 10%+ in higher consumer spending that UBI/ULI generates (its always been trickle up economics).

For these reasons a 5% surtax on those who do not have an outstanding ULI balance is fair to allow higher income Canadians to bear some responsibility for the tremendous winfall that UBI/ULI provides to the successful.

The proceeds from this 5% surtax (from CRA 2012 data) assuming its from those with incomes over $80k, 5% of $482B income from that group would be $24B. If that surplus funding is used to pay a social dividend to adult citizens only, it would be enough for $1200 per citizen. (Note that it is not a surtax only on income above $80k. Instead, people either pay 15% royalty on all income or 5% surtax depending on whether or not they have a life account balance outstanding)

The citizen's dividend would be used to repay ULI balances for those that have them, and so effectively the only people receiving a cash benefit from the citizen dividend would be those that pay the 5% surtax. Further enhancing its fairness. Any other surplus tax revenue resulting from say economic growth, and the buffers built into the proposed tax/UBI code, should also go towards citizen dividend payments.

An immigrant unconditional income program
A $10000 ULI program with 40% royalty rate on incomes while having a balance, and "normal" tax rates if their balance is 0, would provide non-ctizens with $25000 after tax income on earned income of $25000.

This is actually extremely close to the 16% GAI clawback on $6300 + 22% "normal" tax rate. Its 2% higher on incomes up to $25k, but 16% lower on income from $25k to $40k. Ignoring the cumulative nature of ULI repayments. The $3000 UBI funding comes from program/tax credit savings that include non-citizens. The $700 difference with the citizen ULI/UBI program is negligible.

It would be prefectly reasonable to offer the same $9300 UBI/GAI program to all residents, and then for non-citizens, offer $2000 maximum annual ULI program. One justification to offer lower ULI limit to non-citizens is the fear of collecting on loan balances if they leave the country.

The only reason to formulate it as a $10000 ULI only program is to soothe nationalist psychopathy about non-citizens paying their own way. ULI has the general quality of a social program framed to suit hate motivated reasons/falsehoods against human liberation. It's loan-based self support where any losses from the loan program costs less than the welfare support it replaces, and the relatively modest support in the case of immigrants encourages their voluntary compliance into the slavery our overlords need.

While a 2 tier system tailored to 2nd class slavery promotion of immigrants may seem distasteful, $10k is enough to refuse slavery arrangements, and choose life independent of permission, and the choice to come to Canada is likely to be more attractive than any other option. UBI creates massive job opportunities available to be filled, and so this 2 tiered pro-immigration plan would suit the slaver/business sector.

Carbon tax/dividends: Another $2000-$4000 unconditional income support
The only effective way to combat climate change is through carbon taxes that direct their funding towards social dividends. By definition the average cheque is enough to pay for the extra taxes if polluting behaviour is unchanged. But every individual is motivated to change their behaviour and so solar panels and electric cars, and home insulation is an obvious money/tax saving choice available to anyone who'd prefer not to pay the taxes.

Carbon dividends should be available to non-citizens as they also use energy.

Financial engineering of ULI for private participation
Detailed in original ULI whitepaper, the funding of ULI is independent from the guarantee of ULI principal. The latter is guaranteed by government through funding the purchase of its own 30 year bonds. The citizen's dividend repayment system would bring the expected guarantee cost close to 0. The arrangement permits the central bank to buy the guaranteed ULI funding loans under the same jurisdictional logic it can justify QE. The ULI funding loans themselves can originate from a mix of private and public sources.

The appeal to investors for ULI loans even with a maximum 2% annual return is the 0% minimum return, and a very high cashflow yield. Median income levels would repay 70% of a loan's balance in 1 year. A $1200 citizen dividend would repay an addional minimum 14% of investment as cashflow.

ULI loans are made as shares in monthly pools spread among all borrowers for the month. The richest and poorest borrowers are all in the same pool. Of all existing loan products, ULI loans would have the fastest principal repayment rate (and thus cash yield) by far.

The 0% guarantee is paid at the time of estate lien resolution which may be years after the recipient's death. But if an average 80% is repaid on a 20 year time frame (140% return on that 80% - 112% of original principal) then even if remaining 20% repaid 0, its a 12% return, and the guarantor would pay nothing. Even if it takes a long time to resolve the remaining 20%, the ULI loan pool is a resellable asset, and so may be cashed out (at a likely discount) at any time.

ULI is a slight accounting trick on the same fundamental principle as UBI. Both are investments by society in its people, paid by taxes/funding of the successful. A national student loan program costs only the unrepaid/defaulted portion. It has always generated net profits to private sector participants. ULI would be tailored more as a break even proposition, but UBI is approximately the same principle of investing in youth and entrepreneurs under the hope that their future taxes repays the received assistance.

Potential for global ULI/Life Accounts
ULI can be a transnational loan, with repayment obligations administered by national revenue agencies. This can mitigate the potential for individuals to use generous development assistance of one country but then move to an oppressive country to apply those skills.

Access to citizen's dividends may be contingent on residency, as a further incentive for citizens to stay in their country.

Banking system involvement
A life account can be just another banking product. ULI funding loans (for lenders) can be products that are both sold as retail banking products similar to GICs and through bond markets, with institutional, private, and government funders.

Both the banks and government can offer backstop financing of ULI funding requirements. In the banks' case, either as short term bridge financing, or simply a partial backstop of a few $Billion. It makes more sense to use retail banking products as the primary funding, and bond markets as a means to resell the loan packages.

Due to guaranteed nature of ULI loans, and fast repayment yield, these products should be eligible for tier 1 capital reserve requirements.

Banks roles could also be used to resolve possible "residency fraud" requiring in branch visits from accounts with suspicious IPs.

ULI as a tool for pilot studies
The ULI concept was originally designed as a solution to pilot study issues. Though I currently advocate for it as a general program. The main difficulty with pilot programs are limited funding and also piloting the concept of/reaction to associated tax increases. While original pilot program guidelines still apply, here is a simplified proposal.

Ontario Pilot program proposition(s):

$12000 ULI at 20% income royalty pay back rate. Accepting proposal rejects access rights to welfare/disability EI benefits for duration of the program. This program is available to those 18 to 25 without post-secondary aptitude, and those 25-64. ($60k income would result in $12k ULI repayments). Any EI premiums paid will count as repayment. ULI benefits will count as income for purposes of income based housing.

$18000 ULI at 25% income royalty pay back rate. Accepting proposal rejects access to welfare/disability/EI/Student assistance. The program is available to those with University admission letters/enrollment. A bonus $1500 towards tuition will be given to recipients who enroll in an Ontario University, but the $18000 is not conditional upon it. ($64k income (likely in future years) will result in $18k repayments.

Optionally, program 2 could be offered to applicants of provincial venture assistance programs, which tend to be far too competitive/rejectionist to be useful.

The 2 different tracks are meant to study groups that already separated as investable vs. non-investable.

For program 1, it should definitely be offered to a large group of social assistance recipients. Some may say no, and a questionnaire should discover their reasons. For this social assistance recipient group, though ULI is a loan with permanent repayment obligation, if the program is discontinued, a portion of the ULI received may, at her majesty's discretion, be reclassified as non-repayable social benefits.

Program 1 should also be offered as a general lottery, and to a random selection of tax filers. The difference between the 2 selection methods is the first group are people sufficiently motivated to receive UBI/ULI as to bother applying. The lottery application level will also show general interest in the ULI program. Both of these groups should select sufficient samples accross age groups.

Program 1 should also be tested in concentrated communities as well as in individuals across the province. Concentration allows measurement of regional economic gains. Isolated recipients provide better expectations for border towns and general happiness.

An alternative pilot design is to include the Manitoba Green Party $6300 GAI plan, and have a ULI program (same amounts less $6300) supplement that. The GAI is a gift. The ULI a royalty-loan.

The left hates ULI as much as they hate student loans
Even if there is political favour for UBI over ULI/life accounts, ULI as a pilot tool is the right way to measure tax and permanent consequences of the program. Accepting the ULI has tradeoffs of long term tax implications even if the program could be temporary.

Any UBI pilot without permanent implications is going to have results, no matter how good, dismissed as "of course free money made people happier", or "they only behaved this way because it was temporary", and then used as an opportunity to shelve the program for another 40 years.

I'll close by repeating my position that pilot testing UBI is equivalent to pilot testing slavery abolition or pilot testing granting the vote to women and minorities. Its an opportunity to avoid action, and fundamentally wrong. They pilot studied basic income in the 70s. Shelved without analysis in Canada. In the US, there was a small decrease in hours worked. The US political response was the same as if they had pilot studied slavery abolition and found a 5% cotton production decrease.

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Moral transformations refer to reframing propositions in a better moral light in order for them to be more morally palatable, though fundamentally providing the same/similar enough advantages. Moral inversions is a process where morally unpalatable objectives and outcomes are pursued using moral transformations. A moral inversion is a moral justification for (likely intentional) evil. These topics should be the main focus of philosophy and moralism. Though we can identify what is moral vs immoral, its relatively irrelevant to do compared to the easy process for corrupting those identities to suit empowered wills.

Fair markets
Adam Smith's justification of free markets was entirely and explicitly dependent on fair markets: equality of bargaining power and perfect information and competition. Basic income is one promising policy to equalize bargaining power in the labour market. Though markets are primarily thought of as transactional arrangements, they also apply to games, such as elections determining power, and fair markets is a subset of fair gaming systems.

I propose that fair markets are a more ideal and permanent solution to market/game corruption than is changing who benefits from the game corruption. For example socialism vs capitalism is a war where the winner reaps the gains from a corrupt favouring game.

If I propose to kill and eat you for profit
You will raise 3 moral objections to the proposal: I should not kill you. I should not eat you, and doing so for profit is definitely not an exemption for the previous 2 moral imperatives. An audience hearing your moral objections would be inclined to agree with you, and either through sympathetic rage against my evil, or merely to ensure a fair game where they are not subject to similar victimization, may seek to prevent or punish my proposal.

To pursue my goals of eating and profit I need to morally invert your losses through moral/situational transformations that will at least intellectually confuse the audience you need to make your moral case to. For instance if a harsh systemic and natural balance kills you, and pigs eat you, then I may eat the pig with no moral (vegetarianism aside) objection to my actions. Exploiting your desperation for my profit can be done with moral "blamelessness"/detachment if I have no visible hand in causing your desperation. If state sanctioned moral authorities (usually the state itself) have not previously denounced profiting from your desperation in the manner that I can, then your audience is unlikely to be moved to your defense, and my media puppets may drown out your voice and confuse enough of the audience to side with me.

But who will pick the cotton
was a primary concern, and anti-abolitionist argument. Abolition of slavery was a moral transformation: An appeasement of liberal moral qualms, while fundamentally permitting the same profit/cotton opportunities, labour market exploitation independent of slavery, and perpetuating african american sub-equality.

A moral transformation is a solution to keeping the world the same while manufacturing a liberal headline.

If voting could change anything they'd make it illegal
Democracy was the minimalist moral transformation necessary to appease violent liberal rebellion. Democracy is relatively recent mid 19th century development in Europe that stemmed from a contagion of rebellions. But a process to elect kings does not eliminate power and control. It merely requires a slight sharing of power among aligned interests and those easily bought.

The key takeaway is that governance does not seek to maximize game fairness, and instead offers itself as a tool for moral inversions. Individual moral inversion opportunities seem to trump fairness ambitions primarily because there is a win opportunity through moral inversion that will escape attention by the losers, and innattentive audience.

Even principled defense of fairness actions do not stop constant attack on them. Abortion, Net neutrality, and 40 acres and a mule all received constant attack. The latter was undone almost everywhere within 2 years. Net neutrality has similar deep moneyed backers, and abortion is just vote bait, but vote bait is the main force upholding net neutrality.

What makes morality focus unhelpful
Winners from corrupt markets will call the markets free, and the outcome just and deserved, while losers will call the winners assholes. The entirety of political discourse is about siding with and against assholes.

The fear of not doing the same thing tommorow
If you promised coal workers that for 10 future generations, they will be forced underground to risk collapse accidents and lung disease while contributing to the destruction of the planet and air environment, they would be very happy with the proposed income security.

Any change no matter how systemically/socially beneficial will disrupt someone's life in the short term, and create reluctance and resistance.

linguistics: fuckface
The ends justify what comes out of your fuckface to justify the ends. is moral inversions and transformations.

Fuckface politics is constituency advocacy dressed up as social progress or efficiency instead of the latter.

I'm unable to determine if fuckfaces are stupid or dishonestly resistant and evil, but these concepts do not seem that complicated, and the latter is presumed for public figures. Stupidity would disqualify them from public influence as much as should evil.

Absolute social morality
is necessary to prevent moral inversions and transformations as a tool for political and economic power. Either tyranny and slavery are absolutely bad, or they are something we say is bad while accepting as close a system to these as possible without rebellion. Without absolute social morality standards, minds are too weak to prevent moral inversions that perpetuate or increase slavery and tyranny.

These are sufficiently short, simple and clear for a court to strictly limit political moral inversions. The list is worth listing because there is not universal understanding of them:

Increased production is good to a society. More things is more wealth, though external costs such as pollution are relevant. Distribution of wealth is a separate question, but private property is the best known mechanism to motivate production.

Savings is at best not always economically parasitic. Corollary to 1. Savings is parasitic as insurance, and is parasitic as excesses over productive investment requirements. Spending always improves economic output more than saving, and nearly all future income (production) opportunities are inherently financeable if not foregoing food or shelter.

Absolute equality of all social members as an absolute ideal. The only controversial aspect here is refusal to consider a gender or class as handicapped children free of responsibility, or superior beings incapable of making accusatory lies. Equality of rights and opportunity.

Freedom is good. The most important is the financial Independence to survive without any legal duty to society. The ideal opportunity of living a comfortable life through sufficient after tax income as rewards for production should be maintained, but this is enough to dismiss outright right wing moral inversions on tax policy.

Work is a privilege. As opposed to a duty or entitlement. If duty, then its slavery. If entitlement, then its corrupt empire unrelated to production, and violating equality of opportunity. The core understanding of privilege is that every good job has many denied coveters of that job's income, and if you can quickly and cheaply make 20M cars (through automation), then traditional car companies and workers are denied that opportunity. Cultural pressure to contribute to society is permissible.

Social dividends is a citizen's right and preference. It implies that the cost of all programs alternative to a dividend payment are paid for equally by all citizens. It implies that citizens are equal and so deserve an equal share of social revenue. The alternative is that citizens are some authority's servants.

Within the absolute social morality constraints, governance should be structured as independent democratically accountable silos wherever possible rather than as unaccountable hierarchies. Executive power/authority is recognized as a practical necessity (tieing your own shoelaces without democratic approval regardless of the idealized efficiency of technological democracy advancements), yet all possible oversight and democratic corrective options must be available.

Society should embrace fair markets/game structure, and reject all political manipulations to keep them corrupt. First, recognizing moral absolutes, then some process for adherence to them is a necessary step in achieving fair markets and governance.

The basic income and social dividend framework
Taxation and equal redistribution of tax funds is the core obvious means of balancing these directives. And not that difficult to do so, as several policy ranges are possible. The key debate centers around UBI and accompanying tax level. I favour gradualism, purely as a concession to disruptive discomfort, but reject low UBI as a mechanism to compel more work. The latter is unnecessary, and will become obvious in the last "fair markets" section of this paper.

Increase production
Not that controversial except for the opposing view of creating more environment per people. Sterilization and mass extermination is the alternative quiet but fairly widespread view that must be absolutely rejected. It is a violation of the equality principle for an authority to inflict death, sterilization, and deprivation on those they choose.

Savings is not useful
is important enough to be its own moral absolute, because it is an important source of moral inversion: "Extortion is good because it will allow us to fund medical research", and "wealth accumulation helps us fund production". Savings is necessary to fight parasitic insecurity, but eliminating the parasite is more helpful. Otherwise, savings is literally having more money than you know what to do with. Though its not something deserving punishment, it is not acceptable to glorify it as a virtue. Spending always fuels more production, and promotes more productive ideas.

Absolute equality
Should not be that controversial. But separation of the deserving and undeserving is the most energy intensive political moral inversion efforts. Entertaining the possibility of exceptions to absolute equality, entertains Ayn Rand's case for valuable people differentiation. In the context of basic income and social dividends, this principle would avoid special payments to parents and disabled, though there is a strong case for UBI high enough to raise children and/or deal with hardships. Universal medical device coverage complies with the equality principle as well.

Freedom in high taxes
The only valid objection to taxes is that they are used to advance kings' moral inversions. Income taxes don't make anyone poorer if they are redistributed. The natural spending cycle returns the taxes paid to anyone willing to work. The important freedom everyone deserves is the relative financial independence provided by basic income. It is a moral inversion of freedom to focus on the freedom from taxes.

Work as privilege
This is the most obvious and most morally inverted absolute. Its inversion serves not only market supremacist greed and oppressors, but "worker paradise" socialists as well. Producing/providing things is the social value, and should be done with as little work as necessary and possible.

Basic income and high taxation is a better system than socialism because it does not matter if the monopoly profits are made by evil capitalists or adorable worker cooperatives. They are sufficient to compensate those locked out of the privilege of those profits.

A strangely stupid socialist objection to UBI is the prospect that UBI could subsidize employers and so increase their profits. The complaint literally opposes circumstances that help you (more people can and want to hire you) on the grounds that they might benefit from the proposal.

The primitive world model of needing to mobilize every available volunteer for hunting and gathering infinite freely available resources no longer applies. Basic needs for all can be provided by the few, and whatever method selects the lucky few, must recognize a compensation duty to the unlucky unselected for the privilege.

No legal duty to society
necessarily avoids oppression.

The agriculture industry employs 1% of the workforce, and the only thing stopping it (and every other industry, fundamentally) from making more money is more mouths to feed.

Not contributing to society beyond existence lessens competition with other social members for contribution privileges, and increases the need for contributions through consumption demand.

Freedom from oppression is a positive reason to give back to your society, and a negative reason against mass gun rampages.

Fair markets
Fair labour markets is an inherent feature of basic income. The freedom to refuse work, and still survive is the freedom to survive without obtaining permission to. It creates more business competition by making it easier to start businesses including cooperatives. It creates easier to find work and higher wages and profits due to less competitive pressures (some people will work less)

An inherently fair market is one that doesn't need regulation. Rules for minimum wage, overtime, and whipping limitations exist because the labour market has obvious oppressive power imbalances, and policy bandaids must limit the extent of slavery within the moral transformation of permitting it. Any reluctance for basic income by employers is an admission that oppression exists, and any reluctance by employees is an admission that oppression doesn't exist. Wages can fairly go up or down in a fair labour market as the sum of all individual decisions and circumstances. Its always the best possible estimate of the correct wage, too.

Self regulation of the labour market also makes the level of taxation and UBI and inflation and laziness mostly irrelevant and self adjusting. The fear that high UBI levels might create inflation and withdrawal from work would simply lower the "real" value of UBI to the actual social surplus produced, and would motivate more to contribute in order to reach their desired consumption levels. Inflation and work withdrawal increases the earnings, ease of income, and taxes paid for those who want more. Humanity will work as much as it wants or needs to, and whatever level that is is the correct level, and one where individual freedom and wishes fully actualized.

The right UBI amount
Gradualism is a better approach than pilot studies or referendums to set "the right amount" because it is less disruptive, and not prone to dishonest manipulation and moral transformations of the research results (which will still result in disruption when implemented).

The right minimum amount to graduate to is an amount given to everyone that is sufficient to address what any lobby group has ever obtained as appropriate for what a narrow group deserves. In Canada, this might be students or parent assistance levels. Imaginary poverty lines are relevant, but not absolutely so.

A maximum amount depends on tax rates and money printing. It is possible to set taxes too high, and an obvious hard maximum is a tax rate that reduces tax revenue. This "tax target" changes with how easy it is for those privileged to work to make money, It changes with automation level and need for "hard" work, and still has circumstantial considerations that imply a range of acceptable maximums, that need another paper to explain, but the main point of the next section is that absolute social morality restricts the range of policy debate rather than insisting on fixed permanent policy.

Purpose of absolute social morality
Absolute truths in social and economic policy exist. "Constitutionalizing" them serves to limit morally inverted policy discussions. Slavery and oppression is not something to be transformed to limit its perceived effect while maintaining the power and advantages afforded to those who extract them. Slavery and oppression need to be eliminated. Alternate absolute moral determinations could lead to our grade schools teaching democracy as "a neat trick to fool the niggers into thinking they are free so they work harder". An absolute morality determination will eliminate the confusion in what society is supposed to be, and honestly outline the constraints of governance. If there is a theory that a governance system is not corrupt, and made up of only individuals with the highest levels of integrity, then there could be no objection to codifying standards of policy and governance.

Absolute morality is the radical notion that how we explain democracy to our children is actually what constrains legislated policy.

A one sentence summary of absolute social morality is policy to maximize creation and happiness, minimize destruction and deception, and eliminate oppression and slavery. There is equational multiparameter balance, but zero tolerance for oppression and slavery, and it is applicable as both a personal and social policy model.

Lying moral inverters will try to argue against each of the proposed moral absolutes, and that opportunity should exist if only to open and ceremonize the process and be certain of them.

Absolute morality exposes both left and right wing lies. The main left wing lie is that "slaves (or the people considerate of them) are the good people and deserve to be the new kings." While wars are motivated by the spoils, it is fundamentally a losing war proposition for the left and labour to be fighting due to their weakening power in the face of technology.

Absolute morality that focuses the equal people quality of workers is the best hope for individuals to gain appropriate (balanced) social power.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Switzerland will vote on June 5 2016 in a referendum that forces their Government to consider a universal basic income.

A YES vote would NOT mean
2500 CHF is given to every adult citizen starting the following month. There is no stipulated amount/details as part of the referendum question. In my view, it is an organizer mistake to have set the expectation of a YES vote so high, as it is too scary and disruptive to people.

A YES vote would meanrefundable tax credits hopefully totalling at least 1250CHF/month would be implemented soon. The same politicians that recommend against UBI would be in charge of this implementation. A YES vote simply forces them to make progress on the issue.

A 25%-78% average tax reduction
The 2500CHF/month plan has been costed out to 208Bchf (paid to Swiss)/year, with funding of 153Bchf (paid by Swiss) tax increases. 55Bchf is saved in social programs. This creates an obvious taxpayer benefit. 26.5% of the 2500CHF UBI benefit or 662.50CHF/month is the average tax payer/citizen net benefit.

While I don't understand the Swiss tax system, I do understand that federal collections are 10% of GDP so about 70Bchf/year, and the 55Bchf in savings would be a 78.5% reduction of federal tax funding of operations (even though actual funding changes are likely to be spread across multiple levels of government).

With the 1250CHF/month plan, the cost is necessarily 104Bchf (half), and savings would likely be over 35Bchf, as some of the 55Bchf of programs cut are meant only for those whose income is below 15Kchf/year, and all of the remaining programs can have funding cuts offset by the 1250CHF benefit. This creates a net 400CHF/month average tax payer benefit or 33% of the UBI payments. It is a 50% government funding reduction to taxpayers.

The net tax benefit and funding savings are entirely a function of program eliminations. The higher the UBI, the greater possible program eliminations, and so the greater the savings and net tax benefits. High UBI levels do not cost taxpayers anymore than lower levels because UBI is primarily a taxpayer to taxpayer transfer.

The magic of UBI funding
The government is like a store that is funded with say an average donation of $1000/mo/person who then distributes the goods it decides that cost it an average of $1000/mo/person. Despite the averages some people pay more and some receive more, and that is not necessarily objectionable.

The objectionable problem of a store deciding what goods it should give you, is that the value of the goods is determined after subtracting the costs of deciding who deserves them, and also enforcing that no one cheats by pretending to be deserving. The equally objectionable aspect is that providing the goods the store wants to give you does not get you the goods you would want to have.

Direct equal money provided by government still permits socialized funding of the store, but none of the stupidity of it deciding what to sell/give you. There's no reason for people to remain deserving (poor) for extra benefits, and the entire bureaucratic overhead of deciding what is good for you is eliminated. You can use the money at any store and get what you want/need.

The fear of other people not working
should really be the hope that other people stop working. All of your work opportunities exist only because clients can't or wont do the work. You buy indoor plumbing systems because you are too lazy - it is not worth your effort - to go to the river each day with a pail for your water.

If you were the only person in Switzerland that is willing to work, and there is UBI, then everyone else will give you all of their UBI to buy your work services. The more people who might stop working as a result of UBI, the easier it is for you to find a job, as there will be fewer people competing with you, and the easier it is for you to get a pay raise if there are fewer people to replace you.

The people who gain from opposing UBI
are mainly those who own exporting businesses that rely on the exploitative power granted by miserable and desperate Swiss. There are also a few people who are completely indifferent to the health of Swiss society such as some government workers and politicians, and passive trust and foreign asset holders.

Of these, only exporters directly benefit from exploitative power. Government workers directly employed by social programs can wish to protect their payment for useless and unnecessary gatekeeping of social services, but if they are willing to work, UBI (+ severance packages) should be adequate compensation to move to an easier- less competitive- private sector.

The other groups are basically indifferent to Swiss happiness. Their only cost to personal relative happiness is other people's gain of basic happiness and stress relief, such that their relative status and privilege. Still only the very richest of these would face a tax cost as opposed to a tax benefit from UBI, and it is a substantial evil to stand in the way of Swiss progress and happiness for such petty and minor concerns.

The 0.1% that are export driven, the 5% government job holders threatened by program savings, and the 5% indifferent leaves 90% to benefit from UBI.

The 90% of winners
The average 662CHF or 400CHF per month net tax benefit can be structured such that 90% or more receive some tax benefit, and 10% or less face a tax increase. Everyone who wishes not to work won't have to, and so gains a choice they value. Everyone that wants to earn more money will find it easier, and even those in the private sector who face a tax increase will increase their after tax earnings as a result of both easier work opportunities, and the substantial economic purchase power of the Swiss as a result of UBI.

The economic stimulus from UBI is a very significant social (and individual opportunity) benefit on top of the individual tax benefits. UBI will reduce the need for Swiss savings. The new Swiss purchasing power will attract (employment producing) investment from all over the world.

The psychotic need for control
Switzerland is objectively the least politically corrupt nation in the world. Permitted popular referendums, and resistance to military enslavement, appears impossible everywhere else in the world. Yet despite the 90%+ self and collective interest for basic income, the YES vote percentage is likely to be less than this. Sure, export focused sponsors of media manipulative lies misinform you, but it is psychotic hatred of other people's freedom that causes you to internalize the misinformation.

The 3 reasons to work:

Self-interested compensation for work. UBI frees all of you from the survival need for compensation. You retain the freedom to work purely for additional compensation.

The desire to help other's goals, with the focus on helping. This is social motivation/manipulation that can be enhanced through UBI. Removal of survival financing obligation opens up more opportunities.

Goal oriented desire to create. Focus is on the work/output itself.

We all have various levels of the 3 reasons in combination. Support for compelling work in others through hunger, status, helpful attitudes or outright slavery is in service to those who need assistance for their goals, but there is no rational or moral reason to support the psychopathic distortion of markets in their favour.

Basic income inherently guarantees fair and free labour markets where the pursuit of money, in the context of voluntarily helping others is fully maintained without coercion or psychopathic manipulation. It further permits the freer pursuit of your own goals, for which you may also enhance the prosperity of labour market participants who, for enough compensation, will agreeably assist in the pursuit of your goals. UBI and automation permits more goals to be pursued, and it is the realization of goals that permits wealth increase in your society. Not the protection of existing wealth or goal monopolies.

Your psychotic hatred of the other crabs in the bucket such that you clutch at them to drag them back down in the bucket is valuing hatred of their freedom more than access to your own. Once out of the bucket, they could help you escape too. Your relative happiness with not being at the absolute floor of the bucket, pales in comparison to the bucket destroying opportunity that a YES vote on the basic income question grants you.

After the YES vote
The significant citizen and taxpayer benefits from UBI already evident can be significantly enhanced.

Switzerland has one of the lowest interest rates (in fact negative interest rates) in the world done primarily for the financial and export sector. 40 or 100 years ago, this might have stimulated the "real" economy, but today the wealth created through automation is concentrated, and this inhibits the pursuit of new goals alluded to in previous section.

ULI (unconditional loan income) is a form of unconditional financial grants that is structured in such a way that central banks can assist the financing of universal income within their current mandates. Central bank participation in the enhancement of Swiss citizen welfare would directly stimulate tax payer benefits even more.

After the YES vote, there will be infighting on how to distribute the taxpayer benefits of UBI. ULI and central bank assistance helps create more taxpayer benefits, and so facilitate compromises.